By Angelina Clapp, Sr. Democracy Fellow and Madison Center for Civic Engagement Graduate Assistant; Masters of Public Administration (‘20, ‘23M)
Over the last few decades, citizens’ trust in American institutions, elections, government, and each other has been steadily declining. It is not a secret that American culture is deeply rooted in individualism and the right to individual and personal freedoms. However, our society has always operated under a social contract where citizens place faith and trust in civic institutions to promote our common good. These civic institutions include the media, religious institutions, education, social organizations, and the government. Recently, trust in these institutions has been steadily declining as Americans retreat further inward than ever before. This can be seen in recent trends of a decrease in membership in certain groups, deep mistrust of our election system, and rampant polarization often facilitated by media organizations. Moreover, 65% of Americans believe that low levels of trust in the federal government makes it harder to solve problems. Additionally, according to The Pew Research Center, levels of trust seem to be associated with people’s views and opinions of institutions and civic life. Americans who have higher personal trust are more likely to believe that common civic institutions are more likely to act in the best interests of the public. The civic institutions mentioned include scientists, the military, police, public school officials, religious leaders, college and university professors, journalists, business leaders, and elected officials.
Public trust in our elections has also declined in recent years. Recent trends have highlighted a large partisan gap in overall trust in the U.S. election administration system, with 56% of Republicans saying that the 2022 midterms were going to be poorly administered. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Democrats show overwhelming support for election administration and believe elections are safe and effective. Additionally, studies have shown that the United States is experiencing affective polarization faster than other democracies. This is a worrisome trend, as affective polarization refers to citizens viewing the opposing political party more negatively than their own. The study found that in 2016, Americans rated the opposing political party 45.9 points lower than their own, which is an increase from 27 points in 1978. The study cited the increase in the 24-hour partisan cable news cycle as a potential reason for the increased polarization. Multiple news networks have moved further apart on the ideological spectrum, many broadcasting negative stories about the opposing political party. This trend is extremely relevant to the idea of civil discourse, as polarization is the exact OPPOSITE of what civil discourse should be. An increase in extreme polarization and over-consumption of one-sided extreme media narratives leads to a decrease in America’s civil discourse abilities and, most importantly, civic reasoning skills.
Civil discourse can be defined as constructive, deliberative communication and is necessary for our common good because it requires respect for each other, even when opposing views are presented. Our current society is operating at a level of incivility. That is, actors such as policymakers, elected officials, community members and leaders are unable and unwilling to engage in civil discourse with each other on important, often wicked, public issues. We see this on TV, with many ultra-partisan talking heads ranting unchecked for hours on an issue, with no debate or discussion of the ideas presented. This environment is harmful and toxic to our democracy. The kind of discourse a thriving democracy needs is one outlined by Simone Chambers in her article “Deliberative Democratic Theory” and is characterized by: “Debate and discussion aimed at producing reasonable, well-informed opinions in which participants are willing to revise preferences in light of discussion, new information, and claims made by fellow participants. Although consensus need not be the ultimate aim of deliberation, and participants are expected to pursue their interests, an overarching interest in the legitimacy of outcomes (understood as justification to all affected) ideally characterizes deliberation” (Chambers, 2003, p, 309).
Based on this, it is evident that current, often national-level, dialogue on important public issues is not productive nor deliberative. In fact, many citizens ignore public debates and feel that they are “mere spectators in a polity where all the significant action seems to go above their heads, with their own views ignored by pundits and clashing partisans” (Skocpol, 1999, p.504). Additionally, many discussions occur on a level of anonymity, where these talking heads are often not held accountable for what they say. This is also prolific online and on social media, where people make claims and comments under the guise of an anonymous profile – often leading to an inability to discuss or debate their ideas. The idea of public discussion as political theater, something that is often seen in the media and sometimes on the floors of Congress, is not something that should be considered civil or deliberative. Deliberative discussions and civil discourse are not incentivized in our current political climate. Media moguls and politicians alike often do whatever gets them the most attention and views – which is often political theatrics rather than honest, good-faith attempts at discussions of policy.
Civil discourse is also being tested in an area where many believe to be a fundamental “marketplace of ideas” – that is, college and university campuses. In these spaces, civil discourse should be prolific due to the nature of what many believe campuses should be – an environment where free speech flourishes. However, this is not always the case. The argument can be made that civil discourse is absent on campuses, and that students are increasingly unable and unwilling to discuss wicked ideas with each other. The withdrawal away from political conversations and topics can lead to a lack of respect and understanding of different opinions. This is a worrisome trend – as it is also clearly demonstrated at the national level. Overall, it appears that we are unable to discuss issues with those with different opinions than our own – and this is harmful to our democracy. When divisive speakers come to college campuses to give a speech on a controversial topic – there are often remarks made about their right to speech, while people also criticize those who chose to protest the event. This was seen on Twitter after the Liz Wheeler event – with supporters criticizing those who choose to exercise their first amendment right and protest the event. I argue that you cannot have it both ways. Speakers can speak, and protesters can protest. However, this example is still not productive and meaningful civil discourse. A real discussion of ideas would be respectful, constructive, and deliberative as opposed to divisive, hurtful, and unproductive to the greater conversation on an issue. Our democracy needs meaningful discourse in order to thrive, and survive.
Recent Comments